Infection prevention and control between legal requirements and German Society for Hygiene and Microbiology expert assessments: a cross-sectional study in September-November 2022.
Healthcare workers
Hospital hygiene
Infection prevention and control
Mask
SARS-CoV-2
Staff workloads
Universal screening
Journal
The Journal of hospital infection
ISSN: 1532-2939
Titre abrégé: J Hosp Infect
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8007166
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2023
Jul 2023
Historique:
received:
04
01
2023
revised:
15
03
2023
accepted:
03
04
2023
medline:
20
6
2023
pubmed:
16
4
2023
entrez:
15
4
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In contrast to the beginning of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), pandemic, more and more hospital issues are now regulated by policy. To identify differences between expert recommendations and legal requirements regarding infection prevention and control (IPC) strategies. A cross-sectional study was conducted between 29 The majority (66%) of experts recommended universal mask usage, with 34% recommending it seasonally, even after the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Medical microbiology (MM) experts were more likely to recommend continuing to wear the masks indefinitely compared with IPC experts. Concerning the mask type, medical masks were recommended more frequently by IPC experts (47.3%), while FFP2 masks were preferred by MM experts (31.8%). The majority (54.7%) of experts recommended universal screening of employees, mainly in settings with extremely vulnerable patients and if regional incidence rates were high, at a frequency of twice per week. The dominant advice (recommended by at least 50% of experts) for employees exposed to SARS-CoV-2 was daily testing and wearing a mask, regardless of the length of exposure. Expert recommendations deviate from the legal requirements and appear to be more differentiated and proportional. The influence of specific experience and expertise on mask recommendations should be investigated in more detail. For relevant policy decisions, a quick, focused and broad-based consultation of expertise could be of added value.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In contrast to the beginning of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), pandemic, more and more hospital issues are now regulated by policy.
AIM
OBJECTIVE
To identify differences between expert recommendations and legal requirements regarding infection prevention and control (IPC) strategies.
METHODS
METHODS
A cross-sectional study was conducted between 29
FINDINGS
RESULTS
The majority (66%) of experts recommended universal mask usage, with 34% recommending it seasonally, even after the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Medical microbiology (MM) experts were more likely to recommend continuing to wear the masks indefinitely compared with IPC experts. Concerning the mask type, medical masks were recommended more frequently by IPC experts (47.3%), while FFP2 masks were preferred by MM experts (31.8%). The majority (54.7%) of experts recommended universal screening of employees, mainly in settings with extremely vulnerable patients and if regional incidence rates were high, at a frequency of twice per week. The dominant advice (recommended by at least 50% of experts) for employees exposed to SARS-CoV-2 was daily testing and wearing a mask, regardless of the length of exposure.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Expert recommendations deviate from the legal requirements and appear to be more differentiated and proportional. The influence of specific experience and expertise on mask recommendations should be investigated in more detail. For relevant policy decisions, a quick, focused and broad-based consultation of expertise could be of added value.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37061047
pii: S0195-6701(23)00112-3
doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2023.04.001
pmc: PMC10101543
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
35-43Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 The Healthcare Infection Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Références
GMS Hyg Infect Control. 2021 Nov 22;16:Doc31
pubmed: 34956823
BMC Infect Dis. 2022 Jul 2;22(1):587
pubmed: 35780088
J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open. 2022 Jan 20;3(1):e12622
pubmed: 35079730
GMS Hyg Infect Control. 2021 Sep 14;16:Doc27
pubmed: 34650903
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 May 6;5:CD015112
pubmed: 35514111
J Hosp Infect. 2022 Jul;125:28-36
pubmed: 35413422
JAMA. 2021 Mar 9;325(10):998-999
pubmed: 33566056
Indoor Air. 2022 Jan;32(1):e12968
pubmed: 34862811
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2022 Dec;65(12):1251-1261
pubmed: 36416888
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2021 Oct;32 Suppl 21:382-388
pubmed: 34196063
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2022 Jun 20;11(1):87
pubmed: 35725502
BMJ. 2021 Nov 26;375:n2895
pubmed: 34836876
Infect Prev Pract. 2022 Mar;4(1):100192
pubmed: 34870142
BMC Infect Dis. 2022 Jan 29;22(1):105
pubmed: 35093012
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2021 Apr;64(4):435-445
pubmed: 33787944